VERITAS (Venus Emissivity, Radio Science, InSAR, Topography And Spectroscopy) is aimed at understanding one of the most fundamental questions in planetary evolution: Why are the twin planets Earth and Venus so different? Venus and Earth are nearly the same size and bulk compositions. Yet Earth ended up supremely habitable and Venus a sulfurous hell, where the surface temperature is hot enough to melt lead. Understanding how these two planets arrived at their present state is essential to understanding the evolution of rocky planets like Earth, and thus for predicting whether the Earth-sized planets in other solar systems are likely to be habitable. VERITAS will investigate Venus’ geologic evolution by obtaining global maps of high-resolution radar imaging, topography, and near infrared spectroscopy to constrain surface composition. This wealth of data will provide rich opportunities for discovery and inquiry for the next generation of planetary scientists and bring the information available for Venus on par with that for Mars, Mercury, and the Moon.

1. Social Justice in the Physics and Astronomy Classroom2. White Privilege Conference 17 3. President’s Column: Combatting Bias in the Trenches4. The complex role of gender in faculty hiring5. How Marvel's 'Thor' Contest Empowered a Group of Young Women Science Buffs6. Why We Need Intersectionality Week 7. Job Opportunities 8. How to Submit to the AASWomen Newsletter9. How to Subscribe or Unsubscribe to the AASWomen Newsletter10. Access to Past Issues of the AASWomen Newsletter

At the beginning of this winter term (in Montreal we don't even try to call it the "spring" term), I tried for the first time to directly address social justice issues, including racism and harassment, in my physics classroom…

With considerable trepidation, I tackled this the way brand new faculty tackle most things, I just tried something. And yes, it was clumsy. I share my experience here because I want to embolden other junior (and senior) faculty to take a stab at this conversation and because I would like to learn from those of you who have made (or will make) similar attempts.

White people who want to improve the experiences of others have to work against the socialization and norms of society, which convey fear of people of color, of Muslims, of transgender people, of people with disabilities, and so on. If it was possible to be unaware of this fear and its impact before, this year's presidential campaign should make it clear to anyone, regardless of her/his/their politics, that we live in a divided and troubled society.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------4. The complex role of gender in faculty hiringFrom: Nicolle Zellner [nzellner_at_albion.edu]

"Gender bias in hiring is not blatant...but gender-associated differences in productivity, postdoctoral experience, and institutional prestige of degree-granting institutions—which are likely due to bias against women during the training process—largely account for the observed gender imbalance in computer science faculty hiring networks."

At the annual AAUW National Convention, a group of Younger Women’s Task Force chapter directors got together to discuss social justice, including the topic of intersectionality. As a result of those discussions, the first-ever YWTF Intersectionality Week will take place May 1–7.

- Assistant Professor of Astronomy (tenure-track), University of Hawai`i at Hilo (Big Island)http://hilo.hawaii.edu/uhh/hr/vacancy/982--------------------------------------------------------------------------------8. How to Submit to the AASWOMEN newsletter

To submit an item to the AASWOMEN newsletter, including replies to topics, send email to aaswomen_at_aas.org

All material will be posted unless you tell us otherwise, including your email address.

When submitting a job posting for inclusion in the newsletter, please include a one-line description and a link to the full job posting.

Please remember to replace "_at_" in the e-mail address above.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------9. How to Subscribe or Unsubscribe to the AASWOMEN newsletter

Join AAS Women List by email:

Send email to aaswlist+subscribe_at_aas.org from the address you want to have subscribed. You can leave the subject and message blank if you like.

Be sure to follow the instructions in the confirmation email. (Just reply back to the email list)

To unsubscribe by email:

Send email to aawlist+unsubscribe_at_aas.org from the address you want to have UNsubscribed. You can leave the subject and message blank if you like.

Wednesday, April 20, 2016

At the beginning of this winter term (in Montreal we don't even
try to call it the "spring" term), I tried for the first time to
directly address social justice issues, including racism and harassment,
in my physics classroom.

In the months leading up to this attempt, I read that having diverse role models in the sciences is a good place to start, but
not a replacement for an open, candid conversation about bias in STEM.
(If you have a reference for this study, please
contact me. I can't relocate it!) I'm a white women and a physics
professor and perhaps that's a useful combination for some students to
experience, but my mere presence doesn't prompt them to think about the
core issues that lead to bias in physics and astronomy.
Me standing there doesn't openly challenge them to consider racism,
ablism, unconscious bias, or even gender discrimination. My desire
to talk about these issues crystallized at the end of last year when
Justices in the US Supreme Court used the physics classroom as an example of a place where diversity
couldn't or shouldn't matter, to the outrage of many physicists and astronomers, outrage also articulated eloquently by Jedidah Isler in her NY
Times Op Ed, The ‘Benefits’ of Black Physics Students.

With considerable trepidation, I tackled this the way brand new
faculty tackle most things, I just tried something. And yes, it was
clumsy. I share my experience here because I want to embolden other
junior (and senior) faculty to take a stab at this
conversation and because I would like to learn from those of you who
have made (or will make) similar attempts.

Here's what I did:

1. On day one, near the start of class, I gave a short anonymous survey:

Find a piece of paper, DON’T write your name on it. Answer these simple questions:
– Take a moment to look around at the members of our class.
Does this class look normal to you? In what ways yes, and in what ways
no?
– What are you most excited about learning in this class?
– What is your greatest anxiety about this class?
– What are your greatest excitements/anxieties outside of this class?

Pick one answer and share it with the person sitting in front of or behind you...

Turn your questionnaire in when you pick up PS #1 at the end of class.

2. Then I introduced myself, talked about my research interests,
told them about my unlikely career path, and also about my attempts to
learn about and work toward equity and inclusion in STEM. I used both my
non-traditional career path and my own commitment
to equity to segue into a description of the fraught comments from the
US Supreme Court.

At the end of this 1-2-3 my classroom was dead silent. If you
could look at my slides, you'd see that the next one features a linearly
polarized plane wave. Seriously. The transition was just about that
abrupt. I desperately wanted to bring this conversation
to my students, but I didn't manage to make it a conversation at all. I
could hear them thinking, "We're in Canada, what does the US Supreme
Court have to do with us?" "Why are we talking about this?" "Are we ever
going to talk about Optics?" "Does she even
know anything about Optics?" "Is this going to be on the exam?" And I
wanted to scream, "Didn't you hear the part about training
revolutionaries?"

It was awkward. You can see my impostor syndrome kicking in as I
struggled to express how much this conversation meant to me and how
clearly I saw that I hadn't approached it well.

After that, I provided my students with several excellent
suggested reading lists from Chanda Prescod-Weinstein and John Johnson (here and here; which mercifully do include some discussion of race and racism in
Canada).
And I dropped it.

My actual, real, live discomfort with talking about discrimination
in a physics classroom manifested in me: (1) not making it a real
conversation with my students, (2) not having a plan to meaningfully
integrate either the student surveys or the concepts
themselves into future discussions, and (3) not returning to it as a
theme over the rest of the term.

My first foray was not a smashing success, but I remain committed to this endeavor. It's too important to the future
of physics and astronomy, and for people inside and outside of STEM,
for me to drop it altogether. These actually are our future leaders. So, if you have additional resources and/or have
tried to facilitate a similar conversation in your physics classroom,
please contact me. I would like to learn, to learn from, and (if you're
game) possibly to share your story.

Monday, April 18, 2016

Last week and this weekend I attended the 17th White Privilege Conference, held in Philadelphia. The conference examines the challenging concepts of privilege and oppression, and helps participants build strategies to advance equity and inclusion in their lives and their institutions. I was a first-time attendee. The conference was both challenging and informative, and while it was personally very enjoyable for me, it was not necessarily so for others. As a senior white male, I have a lot of privileges, and whether I intend it or not, whether I am aware or not, these privileges generally come at the expense of others. This conference does a great job of opening eyes to this inequity and to illustrating the difference between intent and impact.

White people who want to improve the experiences of others have to work against the socialization and norms of society, which convey fear of people of color, of Muslims, of transgender people, of people with disabilities, and so on. If it was possible to be unaware of this fear and its impact before, this year's presidential campaign should make it clear to anyone, regardless of her/his/their politics, that we live in a divided and troubled society.

The conference title suggests an opportunity for white people to learn about their privilege, and indeed this is a big part of the experience. But who are the teachers? Is it people of color or other white folk?

The language can be off-putting or uncomfortable to those unused to social justice terminology. A person who has never recognized their privilege, never learned how other people are treated differently, can easily deduce that being told they have privilege is the same as being told they are a bad person. My advice is to get over it, just as you got over your PhD qualifying exam. Being an astronomer conveys many privileges, and so does having a college degree or being white in a department store. What is bad is when privilege combines with stereotypes and power to create systemic oppression. By oppression I mean unfair, unequal treatment that limits the ability of others to achieve their goals or potential. It does not have to be a conscious act of the privileged.

There are plenty of examples of oppression of women in astronomy ranging from men speaking over and not giving credit to women, to biased hiring and promotion processes, all the way to sexual assault. The oppression is greater for women who are also racial, religious, or sexual minorities. While the focus of the White Privilege Conference is on race dynamics, there is a strong current of intersectionality.

The conference had a remarkable set of plenary speakers and workshops, and participants got many opportunities to see white privilege in action. This ranged from a white male speaker who took extra time and said he would do so despite being asked by the organizers to conclude his talk, to many black people bearing the burden of white people's anxiety and microaggressions. This is hard work, and those with privilege have a difficult time unless they can show great cultural humility, as described by pediatrician and social activist Melanie Tervalon.

UPenn psychologist Prof. Howard C. Stevenson summed it up very well in his concluding plenary address. "Courage is seeing yourself as the racial elephant." I recognized the truth of his statement, "You are the elephant in the room." As a senior white male, I carry that with me and must never forget. Stevenson's concluding question turned this revelation into the possibility of healing: "Are you ready?" That is, am I ready to call out the elephant of my white privilege and then to use that privilege to halt oppression and serve others?

As lawyer, activist, and inspirational speaker Vernā Myers said in her keynote, "When enough of us are willing to forfeit our privilege, then all of us get to live in justice."

Monday, April 11, 2016

[This post is Part 1 of an expanded version of my World View column in NATURE, Change the System to Halt Harassment from 08 February 2016. Universities and their senior staff must do more to deter, detect and punish all forms of inappropriate behavior – JTS]With the issue of sexual harassment in the news, one hopes that student groups, academic departments, and university administrators are discussing what can be done to eliminate this vile plague from our community. There are fundamental flaws in the current system where Title IX offices are set up to protect the university, where all the pressure for righting these wrongs is placed on the shoulders of young women who are often in the most vulnerable stages of their careers, and where such harassing behavior can remain an “open secret” for years if not decades. In short, we have to find a way to change the system – to train those with privilege, especially senior men, to become not only allies who can support individuals but advocates who will add their voices and prestige to fight for right, to create a “safe space” where anyone facing sexual harassment can get help and advice, and to shine a light on the harassers who still operate in the shadows, destroying careers with their unprofessional conduct.

The Women In Astronomy Blog has already published advice for anyone facing sexual harassment, but here I focus on what can be done by people with power to begin to change the system. The target audience for this post includes senior academics and department chairs, but please don’t stop reading if you are not one of these! Sometimes senior people might want to help but don’t know how, or don’t consider this is a priority, or don’t think they have time. It might be your job to show them how to help, or convince them that this is important, or persuade them that they need to make time for this. Also, if you are not a senior person now, you will be some day. When you are chair of your department, will you know what to do?

Becoming Allies and Advocates

Many senior members of our community admitted to knowing the “open secret” mentioned above. How can it be that so many did so little for so long while so much damage was being done? Think of all those young women, undergrads at a nationally renowned university, who left the field because their professor made a creepy advance. Think of all the discoveries they could have made but never will because they left astronomy before their careers had even begun.

Wednesday, April 6, 2016

Techies is a portrait and interview project by Helena Price that focuses on sharing stories of people who tend to be underrepresented in the greater tech narrative. The project has two main goals: to show the outside world a more comprehensive picture of people who work in tech, and to bring a bit of attention to folks in the industry whose stories have never been heard, considered or celebrated. The belief is that storytelling is a powerful tool for social impact and positive change.

Women-in-Astronomy-Blogger Jessica Kirkpatrick was on of the 100 "techies" profiled. Her interview discusses her experience as a woman in astrophysics, a person with a disability, a woman in tech, and a Bay Area native who has watched her home town dramatically change by the rise of Silicon Valley.

Monday, April 4, 2016

This guest post is written by Carolyn Brinkworth (she/her/hers), Director for Diversity, Education & Outreach at the National Center for Atmospheric Research. This piece is a modified excerpt from her upcoming Master’s Critique, “From Chilly Climate to Warm Reception: Experiences and Good Practices for Supporting LGBTQ Students in STEM”

One of the persistent and prevalent beliefs affecting STEM fields is the “myth of meritocracy” (McNamee & Miller, 2004) - the belief that science rewards scientists of equal aptitude with equal rewards, completely independent of their gender, ethnicity, race, or any other characteristic not related to their academic ability. The idea of meritocracy is seductive, because we’re taught that it’s the bedrock on which science is based; it’s the belief that good ideas rise to the top, and our community treats all good ideas the same, no matter who develops and presents them. Unfortunately, a raft of research clearly demonstrates that this is not the case, and if we persist in this unsubstantiated belief in meritocracy, it perpetuates an uglier myth - that the lack of diversity in STEM is due to a lack of aptitude amongst those who are underrepresented in our field. It places the blame for the underrepresentation of students of color, white women, LGBTQ students, students with disabilities, and those at the intersections of all of these identities, firmly back on those who are underrepresented, because the myth of meritocracy falsely suggests that if they were good enough, they would have risen to the top along with their ideas. The myth, in reality, creates the opposite effect of true meritocracy - a stifling of the best science and our brilliant young scientists, and a reinforcing cycle, where underrepresented scientists are less likely to be recognized for their research, which restricts their access to professional opportunities, which leads to fewer networks, and less opportunity to prove their merit in the future.

The research busting the meritocracy myth is plentiful. Many of us have already heard about the famous resume studies (Betrand & Mullainathan, 2003; Moss-Racusin et al. 2012; Equal Rights Center, 2014), in which resumes of people of color, women, and now LGBTQ people have been shown to result in fewer callbacks to interview, and a lower assessment of a candidate’s ability compared to identical resumes purporting to be from white, straight men. Alongside these classic examples of unconscious bias, there is a deep body of research that speaks to the damaging effect of STEM departmental climates, which continue to be largely male-, white-dominated, and overwhelmingly heteronormative. These studies show how departments and institutions undermine meritocracy, as they require underrepresented scientists to expend energy navigating “chilly” or hostile work/study environments rather than having the freedom to concentrate fully on their studies and research. In a study of STEM students, Seymour & Hewitt (1997) found that a student’s persistence in STEM was unrelated to their aptitude but instead depended on their ability to tolerate the difficult social aspects of majoring in STEM, and that the culture in STEM was largely oriented towards the needs of the white, male students. In a study of gender experiences in workplaces, Eisenhart & Finkel (1998) found that this cultural streamlining towards the dominant group can be invisible to all groups: both men and women in the study reported equal treatment, despite the researchers’ objective observations of inequality in the workplace in favor of the male students and employees. Johnson (2007) found that this belief in “colourblind” and “gender-blind” meritocracy can negatively affect non-white, non-male students, reporting that:

“This match between Whiteness, maleness, and the characteristics needed for success in science was hidden in this setting by the silence about race, ethnicity, and gender, which was in turn hidden by the rhetoric of meritocracy. This silence prevented students and professors from seeing how ethnic, racial, and gendered dynamics helped determine which students found it easier to thrive.”

Cech & Waidzunas (2011) describe this phenomenon in more detail for LGBTQ students in STEM, describing how STEM workplaces often, intentionally or unintentionally, promote a “technical/social duality,” with STEM students and professionals sorting characteristics into either “technical,” i.e. related to subject matter and technical expertise, and therefore highly prized, or “social,” i.e. not related to technical expertise and therefore dismissed as irrelevant. Climate and workplace issues related to gender, race, sexual orientation, gender identity, disability, and any other personal characteristic, are therefore relegated to a secondary issue, and are rarely discussed in STEM environments, despite the significant effect they can have on the well-being and persistence of students who do not fall into the white, male, heterosexual, able-bodied “norm.” In fact, any attempt to discuss issues of diversity and equity within historically white, male, heterosexual spaces can be met with significant resistance, or “blowback,” with faculty, staff, and students questioning the relevance of the topic to their workplaces (Hill, 2009). This refusal to discuss social aspects of the STEM culture can be extremely stressful to underrepresented students, who are already being required to do extensive emotional work to navigate these “chilly” climates (e.g. Seymour & Hewitt, 1997; Yosso et al, 2009; Fouad et al. 2012). In many cases, the silence leads to worse academic and mental and physical health outcomes for those we should be nurturing and celebrating as they start their science careers (Meyer, 1995; Meyer, 2003; Huebner & Davis, 2007; Nadal et al. 2011; Bockting et al. 2013).

The best way to support these students is to talk about these issues, educate ourselves about our biases, look closely at our existing mechanisms and policies to ensure that they are equitable for all, and to advocate for policies that can level the playing field for those who are underrepresented in our field. I’m proud of the way that the astronomy community has increased its efforts to tackle these issues head-on, through the work of the Equity in Physics and Astronomy Facebook group, the Inclusive Astronomy 2015 conference, the work of the CSWA, CSMA, SGMA, and the newly-formed Working Group on Accessibility and Disabilities (WGAD), through the increasingly strong response to the sexual harassment incidents that have plagued and continue to plague our field, and through the many ways in which individuals are working in their own departments to create spaces for all students. It is also not enough. I encourage everyone, especially those in positions of power in our field, to read the upcoming, extensive recommendations from the Inclusive Astronomy 2015 meeting, which outline myriad ways to improve access, retention, and climate in our workplaces for underrepresented groups. It is only through taking a critical look at ourselves, our own institutions, and the climate of science as a whole, then working to affect real change, that we will be able to achieve the reality of meritocracy in the sciences, in place of the myth.

References:
Bertrand, M., Mullainathan, S. (2003). Are Emily and Brendan more employable than Lakisha and Jamal? A field experiment on labor market discrimination. (No. w9873). National Bureau of Economic Research.

Research group spaces play a key role in academia for getting feedback on work-in-progress. Getting feedback can sometimes be a scary or frustrating thing to do, depending on the culture and practices of a particular group. In this audio piece, I talk to graduate students and the lead faculty member of a math education research group at UC Berkeley. We discuss aspects of how they try to create a constructive and supportive culture for feedback. I hope this piece is a helpful conversation-starter.

“Some institutions are very good at nominating their outstanding faculty for AAS prizes and awards, but others are not. As a result the nomination pool does not accurately reflect the talents of the eligible astronomers.

The AAS has addressed this to some degree by allowing self-nominations for all prizes, but … some astronomers are not comfortable nominating themselves. So it's up to the rest of us to find those long-overlooked giants in the field, the rising stars at institutions that don't aggressively nominate, and the quiet but profound field-changers who don't make waves, and to get them the recognition they deserve.

But getting someone nominated is not as simple as firing off an email to the AAS Secretary. It's a lot of hard work.”

4. SMD seeking volunteer reviewers for proposals to Astrophysics and Planetary ScienceFrom: Christina Richey [christina.r.richey_at_nasa.gov] NASA’s Science Mission Directorate is recruiting reviewers for ROSES proposals to Astrophysics and Planetary Science. We especially encourage post-doctoral fellows and other early career scientists to volunteer. The following programs are currently listed: Astrophysics Data Analysis, Exoplanets Research, Emerging Worlds, Solar System Observations, Cassini Data Analysis, Maturation of Instruments for Solar System Exploration.If you are interested in being a reviewer, please go to http://science.nasa.gov/researchers/volunteer-review-panels

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------5. House Passes Bill to Inspire Girls and Women to Enter STEM Fields

From: John Mather <johncm12_at_gmail.com>

“The House easily cleared legislation sponsored by Rep. Barbara Comstock that would call on NASA to continue three initiatives supporting women’s involvement in science, technology, engineering, mathematics, and aerospace, and develop a plan to leverage NASA’s workforce to inspire girls to enter these fields.”

Roughly 85% of corporate executives and board members are white men. This number hasn’t budged for decades, which suggests that white men are continuing to select and promote other white men.

It is well known that people tend to favor and promote those who are similar to them — and that this in-group bias is problematic because it reinforces stereotypes and inequality. However, while it is a common tendency, not everyone is allowed to advocate for their own group. Sometimes when women and minorities promote their own group, it garners criticism from others.

7. SETI Institute to Lead New STEM Project with Girl Scouts: “Reaching for the Stars: NASA Science for Girl Scouts”

From: Heather Flewelling [heather_at_ifa.hawaii.edu]

“NASA’s Science Mission Directorate selected “Reaching for the Stars: NASA Science for Girl Scouts” as a new, 5-year space science education program that will bring together Girl Scouts with scientists, engineers and educators at NASA and beyond.

“Reaching for the Stars” will partner the Girl Scout’s national movement for girls in grades K-12 in a variety of activities that span local troop programs, Girl Scout camps, and events like the upcoming 2017 solar eclipse that will engage girls in space science.”